The is apropos to the letter by Mr. Habib Anwar Qazi dated March 9 on the subject titled above. I endorse his views with regard to conducting an enquiry by the Banking Mohtasib State Bank of Pakistan. My son faced a similar situation, he was sanctioned a ready line of credit worth of Rs 1.5m by Silk Bank in Feb, 2013. He was provided a Debit Vise Card and a cheque book. He registered his cell number and an email address with the branch for future use and compliance. In June, 2013 an unknown person from his office, using landline number, obtained the password from the call centre of the bank and later changed the cell number and email address. The culprit utilized the entire amount leaving a nominal balance in the account. The bank staff of the call centre did not realize what was going on and facilitated the culprit.

On receipt of bill for the month of June  my son was shocked. We immediately approached the branch manager and informed him of the situation. What astounded us was that the cell number and email address were changed by a caller who was calling from a landline. Banks have specific information not to do so unless the caller is calling from their cell phone and even then there is a long verification process.

The manager was very rude and refused to register our complaint. He advised us to investigate the matter on our own. We sent our complaints to the President and Branch Manager through courier but received no reply. While we are receiving monthly statements, with accrued charges every month. We lodged a complaint with the Banking Mohtasib Pakistan, SBP Consumer’s Protection Department, F.I.A. and Cyber Crime Circle Lahore for investigation and to recover the fraudulent amount from the culprit. The Banking Mohtasib conducted the enquiry which revealed that the bank had not documented the information provided by the customer earlier otherwise there was no reason for asking for an email address all over again.

The Banking Mohtasib had not order the bank to probe and rejected our appeal on the ground that the office number was used. The ‘Consumer’s Protection Department’ did noting as the case was with Banking Mohtasib. F.I.A. authorities very kindly conducting this case and now the culprits are under investigation. These facts clearly show that the banks are not interested in the account holders. The role of State bank being custodian of the banks is very important and expected to be based on purely merits under regulatory measures keeping in view of sensitive nature of the case otherwise the reputation of such institutions would affect adversely and interest of the customer would not be safe..

MAHMOOD AHMAD MINHAS,

Lahore, March 12.